Infinte Regress Timeline...

[ryan]

Yes, that is a reason why we exist ecologically.

No.. It explains why predicting agents exist. We are not the only predicting agents.

Why are you explaining why predicting models exist?

And it explains thing biologically, not ecologically...

How life interacts with the environment is ecology. Natural selection requires knowledge of this.

But what does that have to do with what a model is?

It explains that there is no direct casual link between each individuals model and the reality that that model represents.

No causal link, are you serious?! We build models based on observations; how is that not a causal connection.

 

[Juma]

No causal link, are you serious?! We build models based on observations; how is that not a causal connection.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Our model of reality is built on how we experience the reality.

 

[ryan]

No causal link, are you serious?! We build models based on observations; how is that not a causal connection.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Our model of reality is built on how we experience the reality.

And I basically have been saying that over and over again to untermensche.

 

[Juma]

That is just the tip of the iceberg. Our model of reality is built on how we experience the reality.

And I basically have been saying that over and over again to untermensche.

No you do not. You constantly go on about a perfect model. That is not at all what I am talking about.

 

[ryan]

And I basically have been saying that over and over again to untermensche.

No you do not. You constantly go on about a perfect model. That is not at all what I am talking about.

Just on the last few pages alone I must have said that the entire model is not perfect at least 5 times. I said that the models have something perfect about them. Obviously I don't think that all of our models are perfect all of the time.

The input is not only a perfect description of some aspect of the environment; it is the environment. It is our fault and is avoidable that we convolute it and make more out of it than we should.

 

[untermensche]

No causal link, are you serious?! We build models based on observations; how is that not a causal connection.

What do we build them with?

Do we build them with reality or some abstraction of reality?

 

[Kharakov]

That something which does not exist can't cause something? Seriously?

I'm not talking about the imaginary concept of nothing- I'm talking about something that does not exist. Which is hilarious.

You're claiming to have knowledge of "nothing".

The absence of everything? Of course I do. It's pretty well defined...

Nothing can't exist- because if nothing existed, the absence of everything would exist, which means that something exists. Nothing is part of the original liars paradox: Nothing exists.

Sometimes it is far easier to define something that does not exist, than to create a precise definition of what does exist.

Where did you get this knowledge, since you have no access to "nothing"?

You can easily deduce the properties (or lack thereof) of nothing by logic.

What is you opinion of the following paradoxical statement: Nothing exists.

 

[ryan]

No causal link, are you serious?! We build models based on observations; how is that not a causal connection.

What do we build them with?

Do we build them with reality or some abstraction of reality?

We build them with particles from reality and particles from our brains.

 

[untermensche]

What do we build them with?

Do we build them with reality or some abstraction of reality?

We build them with particles from reality and particles from our brains.

What particles?

Again, color is created whole by brains. It doesn't exist in the world. To claim the brain only represents what is in the world is nonsense.

 

[untermensche]

You can easily deduce the properties (or lack thereof) of nothing by logic.

Nonsense. You don't know the properties of anything unless you can perform experiments on it.

So-called logic is how people make claims about the properties of their gods.

These claims are easily dismissed.

 

[ryan]

We build them with particles from reality and particles from our brains.

What particles?

Again, color is created whole by brains.

I know that you are genuinely arguing, but now you are trolling too.

 

[Juma]

What particles?

Again, color is created whole by brains.

I know that you are genuinely arguing, but now you are trolling too.

No. You are.

 

[Mageth]

Am not!

Are too!

I went to a playground and a philosophical argument broke out....ba dum dum.

 

[untermensche]

What particles?

Again, color is created whole by brains.

I know that you are genuinely arguing, but now you are trolling too.

You've yet to respond.

You claim that all a brain can do is make representations of the world.

That is nonsense.

Color is an example of the way brains create things that don't exist in the world.

Going back, just as the brain's of prior people invented numbers.

 

[ryan]

I know that you are genuinely arguing, but now you are trolling too.

You've yet to respond.

You claim that all a brain can do is make representations of the world.

That is nonsense.

The representation is probably much different than what is actually out there. Yeah, the brain is not perfectly consistent. It will show us things that we not have seen.

Or are you saying that we have some kind of creative free will? If you are then I certainly can't argue with that, but I think you will have a very tough time arguing for it.

Color is an example of the way brains create things that don't exist in the world.

Colour is just a process in the brain that wouldn't begin without an input. Why is this so hard to accept? There must be miscommunication because you seem to know a lot about this. I am not even sure what we are arguing about anymore.

Going back, just as the brain's of prior people invented numbers.

Well, now you are in some kind of mind-body theory that you don't need. Why couldn't the first numbers be from similar inputs and similar processes in the brain that exist today?

 

[Juma]

<appcrasch>

 

[untermensche]

You've yet to respond.

You claim that all a brain can do is make representations of the world.

That is nonsense.

The representation is probably much different than what is actually out there. Yeah, the brain is not perfectly consistent. It will show us things that we not have seen.

Or are you saying that we have some kind of creative free will? If you are then I certainly can't argue with that, but I think you will have a very tough time arguing for it.

Not just different from reality, something completely new that doesn't exist until an evolved animal creates it.

Color is an example of the way brains create things that don't exist in the world.

Colour is just a process in the brain that wouldn't begin without an input. Why is this so hard to accept? There must be miscommunication because you seem to know a lot about this. I am not even sure what we are arguing about anymore.

The input is not color, and there is no reason, beyond survival, to turn it into one. And the representation of color in consciousness is arbitrary. It is connected to the input in that the input is a stimulus, but the representation is not controlled by the input. No specific representation is forced upon evolving brains beyond a representation of color that increases the likelihood of survival.

Going back, just as the brain's of prior people invented numbers.

Well, now you are in some kind of mind-body theory that you don't need. Why couldn't the first numbers be from similar inputs and similar processes in the brain that exist today?

If there is a mind-body problem there is a mind-body problem.

This is not something that creates one or dispels one.

This is just an examination of the human mind and the products of the mind.

The human mind can create things whole. Things like numbers. This does not add or subtract in any way to some mind-body problem. Talking about a mind-body problem is just a way to not look at points made.

 

[ryan]

The representation is probably much different than what is actually out there. Yeah, the brain is not perfectly consistent. It will show us things that we not have seen.

Or are you saying that we have some kind of creative free will? If you are then I certainly can't argue with that, but I think you will have a very tough time arguing for it.

Not just different from reality, something completely new that doesn't exist until an evolved animal creates it.

All I am saying is that the input influences what the product/creation is going to be.

Here's an analogy. To me it is like adding an ingredient into a pasta sauce. The whole system changes because of the input.

Color is an example of the way brains create things that don't exist in the world.

Colour is just a process in the brain that wouldn't begin without an input. Why is this so hard to accept?

The input is not color, and there is no reason, beyond survival, to turn it into one.

How on Earth do you keep thinking that I think that colour is an input or somewhere outside of the brain. We have been over this so many times that I actually thought you were trolling. Please pay closer attention to what I am saying.

And the representation of color in consciousness is arbitrary. It is connected to the input in that the input is a stimulus, but the representation is not controlled by the input. No specific representation is forced upon evolving brains beyond a representation of color that increases the likelihood of survival.

It doesn't control the process; it starts it.

Well, now you are in some kind of mind-body theory that you don't need. Why couldn't the first numbers be from similar inputs and similar processes in the brain that exist today?

If there is a mind-body problem there is a mind-body problem.

This is not something that creates one or dispels one.

This is just an examination of the human mind and the products of the mind.

The human mind can create things whole. Things like numbers. This does not add or subtract in any way to some mind-body problem. Talking about a mind-body problem is just a way to not look at points made.

Okay, then I don't know where else you can go other than accept that models have truth about nature inherent to them. Models are like coded reflections of the real world. They are true models of the world for the most part, but they are of a different language. In other words, I see models as functions of the real world.

 

[Juma]

Not just different from reality, something completely new that doesn't exist until an evolved animal creates it.

All I am saying is that the input influences what the product/creation is going to be.

Here's an analogy. To me it is like adding an ingredient into a pasta sauce. The whole system changes because of the input.

Color is an example of the way brains create things that don't exist in the world.

Colour is just a process in the brain that wouldn't begin without an input. Why is this so hard to accept?

The input is not color, and there is no reason, beyond survival, to turn it into one.

How on Earth do you keep thinking that I think that colour is an input or somewhere outside of the brain. We have been over this so many times that I actually thought you were trolling. Please pay closer attention to what I am saying.

And the representation of color in consciousness is arbitrary. It is connected to the input in that the input is a stimulus, but the representation is not controlled by the input. No specific representation is forced upon evolving brains beyond a representation of color that increases the likelihood of survival.

It doesn't control the process; it starts it.

Well, now you are in some kind of mind-body theory that you don't need. Why couldn't the first numbers be from similar inputs and similar processes in the brain that exist today?

If there is a mind-body problem there is a mind-body problem.

This is not something that creates one or dispels one.

This is just an examination of the human mind and the products of the mind.

The human mind can create things whole. Things like numbers. This does not add or subtract in any way to some mind-body problem. Talking about a mind-body problem is just a way to not look at points made.

Okay, then I don't know where else you can go other than accept that models have truth about nature inherent to them. Models are like coded reflections of the real world. They are true models of the world for the most part, but they are of a different language. In other words, I see models as functions of the real world.

You keep talking about truth and perfection as if those are properties of the model. They are not. The reason why the model works is that if not then evolution would have discarded of us a long time ago.

 

[untermensche]

Not just different from reality, something completely new that doesn't exist until an evolved animal creates it.

All I am saying is that the input influences what the product/creation is going to be.

Here's an analogy. To me it is like adding an ingredient into a pasta sauce. The whole system changes because of the input.

Pasta sauce is a passive mixture of ingredients. A brain is an active "machine".

The brain decides how it will handle incoming information. The incoming information does not decide how it will be handled or what it will be turned into.

Once you have something like a brain you have something new in the universe. Something that decides for itself how it will act.

The input is not color, and there is no reason, beyond survival, to turn it into one.

How on Earth do you keep thinking that I think that colour is an input or somewhere outside of the brain. We have been over this so many times that I actually thought you were trolling. Please pay closer attention to what I am saying.

Then take the next logical step. If color does not exist in the world it is therefore something a brain creates whole. There is nothing forcing evolving brains to create color. It is pure happenstance. There are no "particles" responsible for colors. There are only brains doing what they have evolved to be able to do.

The key point is not that brains create color and therefore we have this entity "color" that exists yet has no material existence.

The key point is that color is something completely new that the universe couldn't have caused because it only exists in minds. A universe devoid of color can't cause color. There is no possible mechanism.

And the products of evolution are not what the universe caused. They are what by chance arose and was able to survive in the universe.

It doesn't control the process; it starts it.

Random chance (mutation) starts it. The stimulus does not cause the evolving brain to evolve to a point it can create color. The evolving brain gets complex enough and a random event allows it to create color in response to a stimulus.

The external world is not guiding evolution or pushing evolution in any specific direction. Evolving life is moving out in many directions. Only some of these directions survive. That is a failure to adapt to changing environments, not an existing environment forcing change.

Okay, then I don't know where else you can go other than accept that models have truth about nature inherent to them.

They are abstractions we use to make predictions. Nature is nowhere an equation and something making calculations desperately trying to solve the equation to make adjustments. Nature has no need of equations and does not operate using them.

The only truth inherent in the models is that they can make predictions. The way they do this has nothing to do with how the universe operates.